I OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

I AUSTIN 

~RO”Et-3 SELLERS 

/ ATTORNEY GENERAL 

Honorable Roy L. HLll 

county Attorney 

mlnneas counw 

Ballingor, Texas 

Deer Slrr 

of this SL:: 

as follows: 

letter reoelved 

to the authority 

ellmf the county 

ide from her regular 

the respeotive Comof County funds for 

ve already ruled on this 

erstend tNs method a? keeping 

prevalent over Texas, and if 

e mail me a'oopy of the opinion. 

If you do not have this question prepared from e 

former opinion, then will you please edvlse, if 

In your opinion the Cowaissloners Court has the 

euthorityj to have their individual accounts kept, 

and pay for suoh services with County Funds?" 
Eon. Roy L. Hill, Page 2 

The letter of the County Judge addressed to you, 

a& referred to in your letter es quoted above is l,n psrt as 

follcVs: 

"In th6 case of Stephens et al v. lrdllls County 

113 9. U. 2 D page 944. The court passed on whether 

or not there was a contract betveen tha County Trea8urer and the Commls8ioner Courtj for paylag the 

Treasurer extra money for tha work she did for the 

oonualasl.otiers outalda of her regular offloial duties 

as County Treasurer. 

'The question I vent to knw la, can the Corn-- 

missioners oourt pay out of their reed and bridge fund 

money to the Count7 Treasurer for keaplng separate 

books for eaoh Comlaaloners preolnot, making a motathly itemized stetement es to the receipts, and dlstrubments for eaoh Commissioner pmoinot, l aoh mouth, 

and then oomplllng at tha end of the year all this 

.ttormstlon, Into an annual report for eaoh Comnlal loMM preoinot. 

"This of oourae will be over, and above the 

salary she receives for porforisfng her regular offloial duties as County Troaauror.” 

Generally speaking, the Laglalaturo has the power to 

~r$i; the duties and to fix the 0 

(See Section 44, Article 1 Fof the State Conatltuthon). 

nsation of the County 

Artiolas $41, 3942 and 5943, Vernon*a Annotated Civil Statutes are 

applioable to the County Treasurer and fix the maximum oompensation 

as aazm relates to only the duties of hla office and ~OVO no applioatlon to extra servloes as referred to in your latter. 

Opinion No. O-59 of this Department holda that it is 

permlsslble for 8 County !Preasurer to aooept compensation for 

servicea rendered beyond the duties of his offlca where the performance of suoh services called for la olearly not within the 

soope of the offloiel &uties of the office which he holds. 

It is apparent that keeping the aooounts of eaoh oounty 

ocmslplssioner ia an addition to and is not a part of the offioial 

duties of the County Treasurer. (See the oaae of Stephens et al 

v. Mills County, 113 9. W. (2d) 944). 
BOX%. Roy L. Hill, Pege 3 

It is well established in this State, 8s stated in 

Texas JurlsprudeMe, Vol. 11, P. 564: 

"Comtulssloners~ Courts are courts of limited jurisd,iotlon, in that their authority extends only to 

matters pertaining to the goner81 welfare of their 

respective oounties and that their powers em only 

those expressly or Fmplledly oonferred upon them by 

law, that Is, by the Constitution and atatutes of 

the State." 

The cese of Stephen et al v. Wills County, supn, 

stron& indloates that the Comiasloners@ Court hes the legal 

euthorlty to contraot with the County Treasurer for the purpose 

of keeping the aooounts of each County Ccemlssloner, and suoh 

servloes 81% additional to end not a p8bt of his duties 88 County 

Tn8surer. 

For the purposes of this opinion we must presume that 

the Comnissloners* Court of your oounty is oomplylng vLth the 

provialons of Article 6740, V. A. C. S., as interpreted by the 

Supreme Court of this State in the case of Stovall v. Shiverq 

103 9. W. (2d) 363, end that the road end bridge fund of the 

oounty, other than the funds derived from registration of autoaobilea reoelved under Artlole 6679~lo, V. A. C. S., vhloh we 

hpve held should be oerried in a separate and distinct ro8d end 

bridge fund eooount, is C8rriOd in a Sing10 8ooount and is frm 

time to time apportioned to the four Commlssioners~ preolnots 

respectively es was done in the 0888 of Garland v. Sanders, 114 

9. W. (2d) 302. If this assuaptlon 1s oorreot, we knov of no 

reason why the Commissioners 1 Court may not employ the County 

Treesurer, or eny other person to keep the aocounts of eaoh 

oounty oomlsslomr for his nspeotive preolnot and pay for 

suoh servloes out of the road and bridge Fred of the oounty 

since there is no duty imposed upon the County Treasurer or 

any other offloer to keep suoh a detailed record and report of 

the receipts and disbursements for each oommissioner~s precinct. 

If the road and bridge fund is not carried in a single 

eooount but is divided Into four separate and dlstlnot aooounts 

there would be no necessity for such extra bookkeeping for the 

County Treasurer's books would at all times show the amounts 
ga. R0y L. Roll, P8g8 4 

OredftOd end OhRFged to eaoh C?f said preoiacta and the ~~SPQCtive belanoe in ench, if any. 

Yours very truly 

...F.~, 

ATTORREY GiEHEIUL OF TgxAs 

ArdeLl William 

;' ,a _ .~ AOai8tont 

Aum